Go to page

Registered

The initial collision that forced the suspects off the road caused some unforeseen problems for the agents, as the FBI vehicles sustained damage from the heavier, older car driven by Matix.[SUP][8][/SUP]

Just prior to ramming the Monte Carlo, Manauzzi had pulled out his service revolver and placed it on the seat in anticipation of a shootout,[SUP][8][/SUP] but the force of the collision flung open his door and sent his weapon flying. Hanlon lost his .357 Magnum service revolver during the initial collision, though he was still able to fight with his Smith & Wesson Model 36 backup weapon.

The collision knocked off Grogan's glasses, and there is speculation his vision was so bad that he was unable to see clearly enough to be effective (a claim disputed by the FBI's medical director, who stated that Grogan's vision was "not that bad").

ETA: For what it is worth, I was in a training session in 1987 in which this shootout was covered in detail. We were told, by the credible LEA trainer, that the agent didn't simply lay the gun on the seat but had tucked it under his thigh, but still lost the gun in the collision. Just one of the possible lessons learned from these agent's sacrifice.

Registered

And potentially jamming the flight controls. In a tactical jet, it could even result in an unintentional ejection when that foreign object messes with the ejection mechanism. Had to make a precautionary landing once when a piece of equipment from the guy in the other seat got loose during hard maneuvering and ended up behind the headrest and potentially fouling the ejection seat.

Registered

Since you've now made you first post to FCC without an introduction, please take the time to post you're own Introduction to FCC so the members will get to know you. You can do that by going to the Introduce Yourself section of The Front Office and start your very own introduction thread. Then you'll find that lots of other FCC members will know to chime in to properly welcome you to the forum, and will be more responsive in answering questions!

Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride! - Hunter S. Thompson -

Happy the man, and happy he alone, he who can call today his own: he who, secure within, can say, Tomorrow do thy worst, for I have lived today. - John Dryden

Generally, it's a common courtesy to introduce ones self before asking favors (information, opinions, selling items, etc). It's been the norm since before I joined. It's nice to see where everyone is coming from. We get a lot of Trolls on this page. Buy hey, it's very nice to meet you Lance.

Registered

To back Barry up Lance, he’s right. Trolls on forums have been a problem since day one. (I’m guessing I’m not the only one here ancient enough to remember the old Usenet days :rolf) That said, given the rather public and controversial nature of this forum’s topic (although it shouldn’t be controversial IMHO) we attract more than our share. I don’t want to say we’re untrusting of new members, but understandably we’re a little wary. We’ve had some real lulus come through. Often, we get folks come through with hidden anti-gun agendas under the guise of innocent sounding questions. Given the more recent wave of anti-gun sentiment in our country, I think we’ve become even more wary. :dunno I’m not normally a by the rules guy myself, but I agree with that one personally...for the above reasons. (Although, I do enjoy thumping trolls tremendously :grin)

Requesting a new visitor take a few moments to introduce themselves isn’t uncommon. But, here it goes along way to helping us identify what I call drive-by posters...those with either no intent to add to the discussion or with less than honorable motives as few “trolls” will take that time. :thumsup

Registered

To back Barry up Lance, he’s right. Trolls on forums have been a problem since day one. . . . . . . . snip . . . . . . . . . . Requesting a new visitor take a few moments to introduce themselves isn’t uncommon. But, here it goes along way to helping us identify what I call drive-by posters...those with either no intent to add to the discussion or with less than honorable motives as few “trolls” will take that time. :thumsup Either way, welcome and I doubt Barry meant any offense.

Hello RadTek, Of course you're correct, as was Barry. I have since posted an introduction in the New Members Section and offered apologizes to both, Barry, and, BeerHunter. Clearly my "attitude" was showing. ;-)

Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride! - Hunter S. Thompson -

Happy the man, and happy he alone, he who can call today his own: he who, secure within, can say, Tomorrow do thy worst, for I have lived today. - John Dryden

Registered

Hello all. I'm new to the forum but not to firearms and have been a Florida CC licensee for 20 years.

I'm looking for clarification and assurance that having a handgun, holstered for quick access (not on my person... but in the car) "in plain sight" and I'm stopped by state or local LEO for a traffic violation (or, whatever) that I'm not in violation of any state law.

I'm 98% certain that I'm OK but the 2% uncertainty is nagging at my very old brain. Can someone comment?

Hey Big Bore,
I know I'm late to the party on this but I felt compelled to provide you with some guidance, that said:

Your concern is, can your handgun be in plain sight within your private conveyance (Motor vehicle) even if it meets the statutory requirement of "securely encased" and "not readily accessible". The answer is no, your handgun may not be plainly visible within the compartment area of your private conveyance, it must be concealed.

Let us examine FSS 790.25 (5):POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.

In this statute that specifically governs private conveyance carry, it is specifically mentioned:
"Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearmor other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance,"

The purpose of this statute, and interpretation, is that all "handguns" will be concealed within the compartment of a private conveyance (Motor vehicle). The statute goes on to explain that it is not a violation of 790.01 (Unlicensed carrying of concealed weapons or concealed firearms) nor does it prohibit the carrying of a legal firearm, "OTHER THEN A HANDGUN" anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use.

Would you care to address the OP in light of 790.25 (3)(l) and assuming the handgun is "snapped" in a holster? :dunno

(3) LAWFUL USES.—The provisions of ss. 790.053 and 790.06 do not apply in the following instances, and, despite such sections, it is lawful for the following persons to own, possess, and lawfully use firearms and other weapons, ammunition, and supplies for lawful purposes:

(l) A person traveling by private conveyance when the weapon is securely encased...

Lighten up, Francis! No one said you should just sit down. However, reviving a two month old thread to provide new information or to correct erroneous information is one thing. It's another to revive an old thread to duplicate answers already provided. Of course, TitleIIToyLover did provide a perturbation that perhaps you'd care to address. :dunno

Registered

Lighten up, Francis! No one said you should just sit down. However, reviving a two month old thread to provide new information or to correct erroneous information is one thing. It's another to revive an old thread to duplicate answers already provided. Of course, TitleIIToyLover did provide a perturbation that perhaps you'd care to address. :dunno

:thumsup I was actually being gentle in my first reply because he actually missed one important detail that makes his answer less correct than already provided earlier in the thread. TitleIIToyLover picked up on it and if he does t go back and edit his "interpretation" of F.S. 790.25(5), then one of us will have to enlighten him so he becomes more "IntheKnow." opcorn

Registered

Lighten up, Francis! No one said you should just sit down. However, reviving a two month old thread to provide new information or to correct erroneous information is one thing. It's another to revive an old thread to duplicate answers already provided. Of course, TitleIIToyLover did provide a perturbation that perhaps you'd care to address. :dunno

If Intheknow wanted to jump into an old thread and clarify some part of the thread that was left unaddressed/unanswered then I would applaud him for his effort. But that in not what Intheknow did. It appears he ignored all of the previous posts and conclusions and decided for some reason that he would give us a different answer based upon the wrong subsection of the statute AND with no explanations to why AND then get buttt hurt because he got called out.

I hope Intheknow will explain why he thinks subsection (5) is controlling, notwithstanding (3) and why the provisions of 790.053 apply in the situation described in the OP.

I have been wrong before and certainly want to know if I am wrong, in my current interpretation.

And besides it would give him an opportunity to raise his post count up from 9, to 10 and get into the double digits.

Registered

If Intheknow wanted to jump into an old thread and clarify some part of the thread that was left unaddressed/unanswered then I would applaud him for his effort. But that in not what Intheknow did. It appears he ignored all of the previous posts and conclusions and decided for some reason that he would give us a different answer based upon the wrong subsection of the statute AND with no explanations to why AND then get buttt hurt because he got called out.

I hope Intheknow will explain why he thinks subsection (5) is controlling, notwithstanding (3) and why the provisions of 790.53 apply in the situation described in the OP.

I have been wrong before and certainly want to know if I am wrong, in my current interpretation.

And besides it would give him an opportunity to raise his post count up from 9, to 10 and get into the double digits.

Registered

If Intheknow wanted to jump into an old thread and clarify some part of the thread that was left unaddressed/unanswered then I would applaud him for his effort. But that in not what Intheknow did. It appears he ignored all of the previous posts and conclusions and decided for some reason that he would give us a different answer based upon the wrong subsection of the statute AND with no explanations to why AND then get buttt hurt because he got called out.

I hope Intheknow will explain why he thinks subsection (5) is controlling, notwithstanding (3) and why the provisions of 790.53 apply in the situation described in the OP.

I have been wrong before and certainly want to know if I am wrong, in my current interpretation.

And besides it would give him an opportunity to raise his post count up from 9, to 10 and get into the double digits.

You know, one of the things I dislike most about the software this forum runs on is that it doesn't have a "like" button. <img src="http://www.floridaconcealedcarry.com/Forum/images/smilies/smile.png" border="0" alt="" title="Smile" class="inlineimg" />

Go to page

West Palm Beach issued a curfew yesterday and in it, in prohibited acts section, other than sale of ammo or firearms or a store or shop intentionally displaying them:
3. The intentional possession in a public place of a firearm by any person, except a duly authorized law enforcement official...

Where can I purchase a firearm legally? I am a resident of Florida and a legal US Citizen.
My original plan was to buy a handgun as soon as I hit 18 but SB 7026 moved the goalposts and ruined that for me.
FS 790.065(13) says:
A person younger than 21 years of age may not purchase a firearm...

Being somewhat new to the state I was wondering if many stores have no carry signs at the door, and if people generally respect them of say F-it concealed means they won't know. I was kind of surprised that when I visited the Apple store in Jacksonville yesterday I did not see any sort of no...

Thinking about buying a Raven Concealment phantom holster.
1. If the holster is partially exposed (not the gun) is this considered "concealed" from ordinary view? Basically I'd like to know if I'm legal.
2. Printing, obviously I'll likely be printing if I carry my full size M&P with light &...

A forum community dedicated to Florida’s concealed firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about every day carry, optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!